|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
Of Frogs and Scorpions Geoff Metcalf And the frog said, "Why did you sting me?" looking over his shoulder at his passenger. "Now we will both drown." "Because I am a scorpion . . .," said the sinking scorpion. "That is what we do . . ." Democrats are doing what Democrats do. They are manipulating facts to support their preconceived opinions and prejudices and squandering a unique political opportunity, which will soon be lost. Partisan vitriol and political myopia have overshadowed sense and reason and the euphoria and sweet taste of victory will eventually turn to angst and the bitter taste of bile seasoned with denial. Regardless of how or why we are engaged in Iraq, how and when we leave is of paramount importance. Sens. John McCain and Joseph Lieberman are correct in warning that failure would be "catastrophic" and spread instability throughout the Middle East . . . as well as undermine U.S. credibility. Meanwhile, Sen. Harry Reid originally agreed, but apparently has changed his mind after being taken to the partisan woodshed.
Story Continues Below
Putting more boots on the ground in Iraq will help quell the violence and (more significantly) enhance efforts to train Iraqi security forces. Withdrawing troops at some date fixed would leave Iraq without adequate security and make it impossible for the nation to make political progress. Queen bee Nancy Pelosi claims adding more troops would be an escalation of the war that rejects a call from voters. The election results were not the mandate Nancy and the anti-war crowd claim to support their "cut and run" mantra. Reid's flip-flop was a surprise . . . kinda. Just a week ago, Reid said he would support a troop surge if there were some plan for withdrawal. As McCain observed, "This is sort of a 180 in a very short period of time." The Dems push to implement the recommendations of the Baker-Hamilton report is dumber than a box of rocks. As I have previously written, http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/12/11/94125.shtml engaging Iraq neighbors to stabilize the region is just plain nuts. There is zero incentive or motivation for Iran or Syria to help the U.S. stabilize a manufactured democracy they want to tear down. Strategically and tactically, neither Iran nor Syria wants the U.S. to succeed.
They want/need us to fail in order for them to introduce an Islamist theocracy. The Baker report is defeatism personified. They don't call it quitting, but hey, that is what it is. The Democrats seem inclined to corroborate the Osama bin Laden observation that "America is a paper tiger." and that the U.S. will cut and run if or when we get bloodied. Reid and Pelosi are right in stating, "There is no purely military solution in Iraq. There is only a political solution." However, they are wrong to ignore the military necessity to achieve any political solution. When two groups go to war, each hopes to impose their will on the other. The side that is most committed will usually win . . . especially if one side is divided. However, with the left-right battle, both sides are divided. Strategy should be aimed at defining an enemy's most single source of power . . . then forming strategy to defeat it. Neither Pelosi nor Bush seems inclined or capable of identifying the other's center of gravity or exploiting it. The inevitable congressional hearings that are coming will not focus on realistic and attainable solutions. Rather, we should anticipate a partisan feeding frenzy focused on the 2008 political landscape rather than the post-Saddam Iraqi environment. House Minority Leader John Boehner, is right in noting, "I don't think that we should be dictating military strategy in Iraq from Capitol Hill." Amen! Notwithstanding the bipartisan pledges of cooperation, expect partisanship to dominate the "new" congress. "The Democrats are back," Pelosi said. (In other words, "There is a new sheriff in town.") "The Congress has changed. Our obligations to the country haven't changed," Bush said from the Rose Garden, backed by his Cabinet. The Washington theme these days seems to be healthy doses of both hope and skepticism. After driving Democratic leaders from a press conference, Cindy Sheehan seized the microphone. "We put them back in power," she said of the Democrats. Passing out fliers calling for defending the Iraq war, Sheehan shouted: "These are our demands. And they're not requests — they're demands." If the Emanuel-Sheehan exchange is any indication, the 110th Congress will be highly entertaining, if not terribly productive. Thus far, it's hard to tell which will be a greater impediment to Democratic leaders: grousing republicans, their own myopia and denial, or the Sheehan types. If Pelosi et al. rule imperially and fixated on abusing their new power, moderate democrats and moderate republicans may become the new majority eschewing the traditional partisan battles for performance based constituent responsibilities. Ya think? Meanwhile, a real enemy remains at large intent on killing us.
Editor's note:
Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Print Page 
Forward Page 
|
| All Rights Reserved © 2008 NewsMax.Com |